5 ms·

I don't agree with this statement. Yes, both conservatives and liberals believe there is an amount of regulation that is acceptable. Conservatives typically are

I don't agree with this statement. Yes, both conservatives and liberals believe there is an amount of regulation that is acceptable. Conservatives typically aren't anarchists. Liberals typically aren't full-socialists. The disagreement is the amount of regulation, and where to draw the line. Though this is the idealized version of reality. In actuality, there are of course a host of political reasons conservatives may want more regulation in some places, and vice versa.

creaghpatr 8y ago
The current bipartisan issue is that the line is invisible and therefore impossible to regulate. Of course, Google has a trade secrets case for the line being invisible. The government makes Coke list the ingredients and nutrition facts, but doesn't make them reveal the secret formula. Maybe there's a similar way to regulate Search?
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  Why regulate search at all? A soon as you think Google is not giving you good search results you can hop on over to Bing or a host of other options. The free market works very well here. As opposed to the issue of net neutrality, where very many Americans have no ISP they can switch to if they are not happy with the throttling their ISP is doing. Said throttling could also be used to silence or slow conservative news and ideas.
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Because the greater interests of Google's voting shareholders are not necessarily aligned with the interests of America's voting electorate. Which is really where any regulation of any company comes from, not an untypical case, the government is just late to the party.
    - gameswithgo 8y ago
      There is no company where the greater interests of the shareholders is aligned with the interests of the voting electorate.
  - stanleydrew 8y ago
    Yes anybody who doesn't like what they see on Google can go search somewhere else. But that won't stop the other 80% of us from continuing to search on Google and seeing "biased" results, which is what is motivating some political/ideological calls for regulation.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  Since my other comment was downvoted, here is another example - today conservative panelists on Fox News were calling for video games, and smart phones, to be regulated/banned to prevent gun violence. I really don't see any kind of innate difference in the amount of regulation actually preferred by either half of america. If someone who downvoted the other comment would like to offer a thoughtful rebuttal or data to support their view I would be happy to consider it.
gameswithgo 8y ago
>The disagreement is the amount of regulation, and where to draw the line. It is not clear to me that there is any disagreement on the amount. I know that the conservative claim is that they want less regulation but how do you measure that? There are a host of things conservative policitians seek to regulate that liberal ones tend not to. There are even huge socialist programs that conservative politicians support more than liberal ones (like the military)

creaghpatr 8y ago

The current bipartisan issue is that the line is invisible and therefore impossible to regulate. Of course, Google has a trade secrets case for the line being invisible. The government makes Coke list the ingredients and nutrition facts, but doesn't make them reveal the secret formula. Maybe there's a similar way to regulate Search?

gameswithgo 8y ago
Why regulate search at all? A soon as you think Google is not giving you good search results you can hop on over to Bing or a host of other options. The free market works very well here. As opposed to the issue of net neutrality, where very many Americans have no ISP they can switch to if they are not happy with the throttling their ISP is doing. Said throttling could also be used to silence or slow conservative news and ideas.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Because the greater interests of Google's voting shareholders are not necessarily aligned with the interests of America's voting electorate. Which is really where any regulation of any company comes from, not an untypical case, the government is just late to the party.
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    There is no company where the greater interests of the shareholders is aligned with the interests of the voting electorate.
- stanleydrew 8y ago
  Yes anybody who doesn't like what they see on Google can go search somewhere else. But that won't stop the other 80% of us from continuing to search on Google and seeing "biased" results, which is what is motivating some political/ideological calls for regulation.
gameswithgo 8y ago
Since my other comment was downvoted, here is another example - today conservative panelists on Fox News were calling for video games, and smart phones, to be regulated/banned to prevent gun violence. I really don't see any kind of innate difference in the amount of regulation actually preferred by either half of america. If someone who downvoted the other comment would like to offer a thoughtful rebuttal or data to support their view I would be happy to consider it.

gameswithgo 8y ago

>The disagreement is the amount of regulation, and where to draw the line. It is not clear to me that there is any disagreement on the amount. I know that the conservative claim is that they want less regulation but how do you measure that? There are a host of things conservative policitians seek to regulate that liberal ones tend not to. There are even huge socialist programs that conservative politicians support more than liberal ones (like the military)